03/26/2002 08:07 AM House STA
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
HOUSE STATE AFFAIRS STANDING COMMITTEE
March 26, 2002
8:07 a.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative John Coghill, Chair
Representative Jeannette James
Representative Hugh Fate
Representative Gary Stevens
Representative Peggy Wilson
Representative Harry Crawford
Representative Joe Hayes
MEMBERS ABSENT
All members present
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
HOUSE BILL NO. 361
"An Act relating to pilot pay programs to attract and retain
exceptional state employees; and providing for an effective
date."
- MOVED CSHB 361(STA) OUT OF COMMITTEE
HOUSE BILL NO. 380
"An Act relating to reimbursement for certain Medicare premium
charges for persons receiving benefits from the teachers'
retirement system, the judicial retirement system, the elected
public officers retirement system, and the public employees'
retirement system."
- HEARD AND HELD
HOUSE BILL NO. 397
"An Act exempting a person driving a snowmobile from driver
licensing requirements."
- HEARD AND HELD
SPONSOR SUBSTITUTE FOR HOUSE BILL NO. 315
"An Act allowing employers that are small businesses, small
nonprofit organizations, or small associations for insurance
purposes to join state employee insurance coverage as a group;
and providing for an effective date."
- HEARD AND HELD
PREVIOUS ACTION
BILL: HB 361
SHORT TITLE:PILOT PAY PROGRAM FOR STATE EMPLOYEES
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S)KOTT
Jrn-Date Jrn-Page Action
01/28/02 2079 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME -
REFERRALS
01/28/02 2079 (H) STA, FIN
02/05/02 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 102
02/05/02 (H) Heard & Held
02/05/02 (H) MINUTE(STA)
03/26/02 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 102
BILL: HB 380
SHORT TITLE:REIMBURSE CERTAIN RETIREE MEDICARE CHARGE
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S)JAMES
Jrn-Date Jrn-Page Action
02/04/02 2143 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME -
REFERRALS
02/04/02 2143 (H) STA, FIN
02/19/02 2329 (H) COSPONSOR(S): HUDSON
02/28/02 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 102
02/28/02 (H) Scheduled But Not Heard
03/14/02 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 102
03/14/02 (H) Scheduled But Not Heard
03/19/02 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 102
03/19/02 (H) Heard & Held
MINUTE(STA)
03/19/02 2611 (H) COSPONSOR(S): STEVENS,
CRAWFORD
03/26/02 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 102
BILL: HB 397
SHORT TITLE:EXEMPTIONS FROM DRIVER'S LICENSING
SPONSOR(S): TRANSPORTATION
Jrn-Date Jrn-Page Action
02/08/02 2183 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME -
REFERRALS
02/08/02 2183 (H) TRA, STA
02/21/02 (H) TRA AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 17
02/21/02 (H) Moved CSHB 397(TRA) Out of
Committee
02/21/02 (H) MINUTE(TRA)
02/25/02 2381 (H) TRA RPT CS(TRA) NT 6DP
02/25/02 2381 (H) DP: KOOKESH, KAPSNER, SCALZI,
OGAN,
02/25/02 2381 (H) MASEK, KOHRING
02/25/02 2381 (H) FN1: ZERO(CRT)
02/25/02 2381 (H) FN2: ZERO(DPS)
03/21/02 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 102
03/21/02 (H) Scheduled But Not Heard
03/26/02 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 102
BILL: HB 315
SHORT TITLE:GROUP HEALTH INSURANCE FOR PRIVATE GROUPS
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S)ROKEBERG
Jrn-Date Jrn-Page Action
01/14/02 1957 (H) PREFILE RELEASED 1/11/02
01/14/02 1957 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME -
REFERRALS
01/14/02 1957 (H) STA, L&C, FIN
02/15/02 2281 (H) SPONSOR SUBSTITUTE INTRODUCED
02/15/02 2281 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME -
REFERRALS
02/15/02 2281 (H) STA, L&C, FIN
03/21/02 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 102
03/21/02 (H) Scheduled But Not Heard
03/26/02 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 102
WITNESS REGISTER
LINDA SYLVESTER, Staff
to Representative Pete Kott
Alaska State Legislature
Capitol Building, Room 204
Juneau, Alaska 99801
POSITION STATEMENT: Presented HB 361 and noted the change
encompassed in Version F.
DAVE STEWART, Personnel Manager
Division of Personnel
Department of Administration
PO Box 110201
Juneau, Alaska 99811-0201
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions regarding HB 361.
BRUCE LUDWIG, Business Manager
Alaska Public Employees Association
and the Alaska Federation of Teachers;
Secretary/Treasurer, Alaska AFL-CIO
211 Fourth Street, Number 306
Juneau, Alaska 99801
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to CSHB 361,
Version F.
TOM HARVEY, Executive Director
National Education Association - Alaska
114 2nd Street
Juneau, Alaska 99801
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on HB 380.
SAM TRIVETTE, President
Retired Public Employees Association of Alaska
7870 Glacier Highway
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Urged the committee to support HB 380.
REPRESENTATIVE VIC KOHRING
Alaska State Legislature
Capitol Building, Room 24
Juneau, Alaska 99801
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified as the sponsor of HB 397.
MIKE KRIEBER, Staff
to Representative Vic Kohring
Alaska State Legislature
Capitol Building, Room 24
Juneau, Alaska 99801
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided information in regard to Version O
of HB 397.
CHUCK HOSACK, Deputy Director
Davison of Motor Vehicles
Department of Administration
3300B Fairbanks Street
Anchorage, Alaska 99503
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of [HB 397].
JOHN JOHNSON, President
Fairbanks Snowtravelers
(No address provided)
Fairbanks, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of [HB 397].
REPRESENTATIVE NORMAN ROKEBERG
Alaska State Legislature
Capitol Building, Room
Juneau, Alaska 99801
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified as the sponsor of HB 315.
ACTION NARRATIVE
TAPE 02-31, SIDE A
Number 0001
CHAIR JOHN COGHILL called the House State Affairs Standing
Committee meeting to order at 8:07 a.m. Representatives
Coghill, James, Fate, Stevens, Crawford, and Hayes were present
at the call to order. Representative Wilson arrived as the
meeting was in progress.
HB 361-PILOT PAY PROGRAM FOR STATE EMPLOYEES
CHAIR COGHILL announced that the first order of business would
be HOUSE BILL NO. 361, "An Act relating to pilot pay programs to
attract and retain exceptional state employees; and providing
for an effective date."
LINDA SYLVESTER, Staff to Representative Pete Kott, Alaska State
Legislature, explained that HB 361 seeks to allow the state to
establish pilot pay programs to assist in the recruitment and
retention of employees. She reminded the committee that it
heard HB 361 in early February when the committee expressed
concerns with regard to the excellence bonus. Members felt that
the excellence bonus was susceptible to cronyism; the Department
of Administration agreed. Therefore, the committee substitute
(CS) [Version 22-LS1317\F, Cook, 3/20/02] eliminates the
excellence bonus. The majority of labor's concerns are
satisfied [with the CS]. However, one representative continues
to oppose the bill because these programs are excluded from
collective bargaining. Ms. Sylvester explained that these
programs are excluded from collective bargaining because they
are pilot programs. Furthermore, maintaining these programs
under the purview of the Personnel Board provides tighter
control in terms of targeting and record keeping. She directed
attention to page 5, lines 25-27, which discuss the commissioner
of administration's report on each pilot pay program. At that
time, it will be determined whether or not the programs worked
and whether or not the programs should be maintained. If the
programs are maintained, the programs will be included in the
Personnel regulations in statute and will be included in the
collective bargaining.
MS. SYLVESTER remarked that [HB 361] targets the problem of
flexibility in recruitment and retainment. She directed the
committee to a chart entitled, "Indicators of Recruitment and
Retention Problems." This chart illustrates, by job title, the
average annual vacancy rate and turn over rate. These pilot
programs attempt to offer [another option to address recruitment
and retention]. She discussed her husband's experience with
these problems in the Division of Finance. In closing, Ms.
Sylvester commented that all in the legislature are suspect of
how well the state government manages its funds and personnel
and thus tend to forget that these are people serving in
positions such as troopers and investigators of child abuse.
She hoped the members could support the bill.
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES related her understanding that this will be
done "for nothing." She asked if that would be the case because
[the legislature] has authorized more people to work than are
currently working.
MS. SYLVESTER deferred to the Department of Administration.
Number 0821
DAVE STEWART, Personnel Manager, Division of Personnel,
Department of Administration, answered that normal turnover,
between 2.5-4.5 percent, is built into the budgeting system.
Financing for bonuses under the pilot pay proposal in HB 361
would come from the vacant positions. Recruitment bonuses, for
example, to entice people to apply would be paid for with the
salaries saved from having those positions vacant. Some
positions have been vacant for a year while agencies have been
recruiting.
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES remarked that she wasn't sure how the
legislature, when doing the budget, knows how much money these
agencies have in the bank from the prior year. Therefore, she
inquired as to whether there is a large amount of money
available for these vacant positions.
MR. STEWART explained that the vacancy rate is built into the
system. If an agency needs a specified amount, 96 percent of
what the legislature appropriates is to operate the agency at a
fully staffed level. If an additional two or three positions
remained vacant because of turnover or a rather lengthy
recruitment, there would be an accumulation of funds such that
it could pay for the advertising and recruitment bonus. It
won't provide a nest egg, he said.
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES expressed her discomfort with this
situation because the legislature can't change the budget once
it's done. She said she was sure that the application for the
budget is sufficient to cover [recruitment advertising and
bonuses]. She questioned how the agencies are dealing with
these vacancies. Is the work not being done or are people
working over time, she asked.
MR. STEWART answered that primarily the work is done by
employees working extra hours through overtime or extra work by
those employees who aren't eligible for overtime. Nonpermanent
employees are utilized as well. The use of nonpermanent
employees and overtime is probably the most common manner in
which work for vacant positions is accomplished. Mr. Stewart
informed the committee that an analyst programmer position in
the Division of Personnel has been vacant for about a year.
This position has been advertised in state and out of state a
number of times. The specific set of skills required aren't
available for the current salary rates, which are already
stretched. Such situations were the impetus for speaking with
Representative Kott regarding this legislation, he pointed out.
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES noted that she liked this idea.
Number 1139
CHAIR COGHILL related his understanding that the Personnel Board
would create a priority system with regard to the greatest need.
He inquired as to how Mr. Stewart envisioned such a system.
MR. STEWART explained that he envisioned the Division of
Personnel inviting comments [with regard to the needs]. He
specified that department commissioners and division directors
would nominate a job class that has experienced an outstanding
vacancy for a lengthy period. If there was statistical analysis
that there would be large turnover of an occupational group,
that job class would be nominated as well. The Division of
Personnel would review the effectiveness of past recruitment
efforts and thus a list of job classes or job class series could
be created for those eligible for a recruitment bonus. For
example, the two largest competitors for employees in the state
are the federal government and the hospital system in Anchorage.
Both of those employers offer recruitment bonuses and other
retention bonuses to their employees. It's difficult to compete
in a limited employee market with those two alone, he said. Mr.
Stewart specified that the personnel board would prioritize on
the basis of need. He envisioned nurses being near the top.
Number 1300
CHAIR COGHILL pointed out that there may be underfunded
positions in one area while not in other areas. Chair Coghill
inquired as to how the board would view that.
MR. STEWART said that would probably be one of the factors in
prioritization.
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES asked if there is an incentive to encourage
employees to consider new methods of doing things or even
eliminate tasks.
MR. STEWART agreed that reviewing business processes is always a
way of determining whether a position needs to be filled.
However, on a weekly basis the state spends thousands of dollars
on newspaper advertisements for positions that receive little or
no response. Therefore, money and time could be saved by
placing an enticing ad rather than a simple notice of vacancy.
He mentioned that looking at the process is something that is
incumbent on the managers [of the] positions.
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES clarified that she was asking if those
doing the job were reviewing ways in which to make changes to
the job.
MR. STEWART said he supposed that would have to be built into
the review system.
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES opined that those actually doing the work
would have the best ideas what to change. However, [employees],
particularly those in union organizations, are usually resistant
to put forth any effort that would eliminate a position.
Therefore, she expressed the need for everyone to see the
benefit for finding cost and work savings. She agreed with Mr.
Stewart's comment that [employees] be polled.
CHAIR COGHILL remarked that such would be useful in regard to
recruitment.
Number 1575
REPRESENTATIVE STEVENS commented that he thought this was a
wonderful opportunity to solve the recruitment and retention
problems the state is facing. However, he understands that now
the legislation merely addresses recruitment. He asked if there
are other ways to assist in the retention of personnel.
MR. STEWART clarified that the retention and recruitment
portions of the legislation remain, but the individual
excellence award was removed. Therefore, class-based retention
awards remain. He reiterated that there had been concern
surrounding the potential abuse with individual [excellence]
awards and thus it was eliminated in the CS.
CHAIR COGHILL specified for the record that it's not promotion
for time in the job. Therefore, there would be some criteria
used for awarding a retention bonus. He surmised that there
would be some avenue to discuss the value of an individual in
that retention bonus process.
MR. STEWART said that retention bonuses would be based on class
specifics, defined skill sets, rather than individual skills.
Number 1673
REPRESENTATIVE FATE referred to the "Indicators of Recruitment
and Retention Problems" chart, which illustrates that some of
the [percentage of] recruitment attempts [that didn't result in
a hire] are extremely high. He inquired as to the reason for
these high percentages.
MR. STEWART replied that in some cases there is no knowledge as
to why recruitments don't result in a hire. He explained that
the Division of Personnel reviews the minimum qualifications for
its job specifications when percentages such as these are
reviewed. This review is done in order to ensure that capable
individuals aren't being unfairly excluded with the stringent
minimum qualifications (MQ).
REPRESENTATIVE FATE continued to refer to the aforementioned
chart and pointed out that some positions that aren't entry
level have high turnover rates. For example, the Accounting
Technician II position has a turnover rate of 65 percent. He
inquired as to the reason for that.
MR. STEWART pointed out that large groups of those people
promote to higher level positions when the highest level
incumbents in the job class series retire. There is a
progression based on skill and time. Many of the administrative
support positions have had a high level of turnover because
people have moved on to other job classes. He noted that the
state hasn't done much research to determine why some of these
turnover rates are so high. In fact, only the recent
acquisition of data from the payroll system provided these
numbers, which have been found to be so high. He noted that
[the division has] recognized that some of the job classes, such
as with the public health nurse and nurse series and the social
worker series, have positions that remain vacant for a lengthy
period of time. Such vacancy endangers the provision of
services and thus this legislation has been introduced.
REPRESENTATIVE FATE asked if the bonus would increase the
retention rate or create a vicious cycle in which a bonus is
paid every two years because no one can be retained.
Representative Fate offered that there could be a systemic
reason for nonretention rather than the pay itself. Therefore,
the money spent to retain individuals would be accelerated by
the bonuses.
MR. STEWART said that the reason to try this proposal is to
determine whether it'll work or not. Furthermore, that's the
reason to keep the proposal on a limited scale as a pilot
project. Therefore, the project could be turned off when it's
obvious that it's not working. Although the division doesn't
know whether these problems are the result of a systemic problem
or a competitive pressure, there are a great deal of state
employees who become federal employees. He noted that the
federal government is paying a 25 percent tax free cost of
living allowance (COLA) with which the state government can't
compete. Furthermore, [there are states] such as Missouri where
$40,000 bonuses were being paid for analyst programmers who
would work anywhere in the state. Mr. Stewart said that [the
division] would like to determine whether these problems are
systemic or competitive.
Number 2030
REPRESENTATIVE STEVENS moved to adopt Version 22-LS1317\F, Cook,
3/20/02, as the working document. There being no objection,
Version F was before the committee.
MR. STEWART, in response to Representative Stevens, pointed out
that on page 4, line 19, the definition of excellence bonus was
deleted. Language referring to excellence bonus on page 4, line
1, was also deleted. The language, "The pilot pay program must
be based on criteria derived from and based on qualifications
for a job class rather than on the qualifications of a
particular employee." was inserted on page 4, lines 4-6, of
Version F. All these changes are included in Version F.
Number 2174
CHAIR COGHILL surmised that this bill will provide an additional
tool in the realm of recruitment. However, Chair Coghill
inquired as to the retention tools currently utilized. He asked
whether HB 361 would enhance the current retention program or
change it entirely.
MR. STEWART said that under the law there is no opportunity to
do anything financial for retention purposes. The retention
awards built into the system involve one's career path, one's
opportunity to promote or be considered for promotion, and
movement in and around the state system. "There's no provision
currently in state pay plan or in the definition or application
of the merit system that allows for, other than (indisc.-
coughing) of effort either at ceremony or not at ceremony," he
specified.
CHAIR COGHILL related his understanding that [the state] looks
in-house first for [open] positions. He identified that as a
retention gain.
MR. STEWART said that the idea of promotion from within is
probably the only method of recognition other than
sectional/divisional certificates of achievement. In further
response to Chair Coghill, Mr. Stewart remarked that he would
love to be able to return to the legislature in a couple of
years and report that turnover rates are [the result of]
retirements and planned progressions and that the retention
rates have dropped. Therefore, the skill sets could work
through the workforce, he said.
Number 2341
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES referred to page 13 of a document entitled,
"Recruitment, Retention, and Promotion of Employees in the
Biological Sciences 2001" by the Division of Administration,
Alaska Department of Fish and Game (ADF&G). Page 13 discusses
the effect of inflation on state employee pay since 1985.
Representative James said that off the top of her head she would
suggest that [the state] hasn't kept pace with inflation.
However, she wondered how the 1985 rates compared to the private
sector then and now. Still, she said she feels that the state
pay is under the private sector. Although Representative James
noted her agreement that the state is underpaying its employees,
she said she didn't believe it's to the extent specified.
MR. STEWART pointed out that the last major salary study was
done in December 2000, which he offered to provide
Representative James.
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES related her belief that when private sector
rates were high, the state was parallel to those or slightly
higher. Then, when the private sector rates went down, the
state's didn't. The [change in rate] hasn't occurred on an
annual basis, and she wasn't sure it could be done annually
because the state can't [merely follow the private sector].
Number 2431
CHAIR COGHILL mentioned the need to realize [the possibility] of
creating a situation in which certain job classes would have
continual recruitment bonuses and other job classes would
experience stacking.
MR. STEWART explained that there was the suggestion that
programs adopted under this language be exempt from collective
bargaining in order to avoid the stratification. Therefore, it
would avoid having one plan for supervisors and one plan for
worker bees [while both] being in the same job class. However,
he noted that there may be supervisory/managerial job classes
that require their own recruitment and retention program.
CHAIR COGHILL interjected, "We're going to bump up against the
edge of that, though. And that's something that probably should
be looked out whenever the report is brought out."
Number 2542
REPRESENTATIVE FATE inquired as to the state of the current
vacancy and turnover rate as compared to those presented in the
aforementioned document.
MR. STEWART said that the division is in the process of reducing
the data for 2001. Although there hasn't been a comparison yet,
he expected the numbers to be fairly similar.
REPRESENTATIVE FATE asked what has been done to mitigate,
improve, the turnover rate.
MR. STEWART explained that the Division of Personnel has met
with agency staff and has developed a number of recruitment
flexibilities. For example, agencies have been allowed to
recruit for a job class rather than a specific position. The
division has also allowed for continuous recruitment for job
classes that are of a higher turnover rate or their
advertisement response rates are low. He offered to provide
Representative Fate with a list of things that are being done to
address this problem.
CHAIR COGHILL announced that he would be recommending discussion
and insertion of language [requiring] an intermediary report in
2004.
Number 2680
BRUCE LUDWIG, Business Manager, Alaska Public Employees
Association (APEA) and the Alaska Federation of Teachers (AFT);
Secretary/Treasurer, Alaska AFL-CIO (American Federation of
Labor and Congress of Industrial Organizations), provided the
following testimony:
While the bill isn't as offensive as it was - we
appreciate taking out the personal bonuses - we're
still opposed to it. We believe that we do have a
serious recruitment problem. We don't believe that
we're competitive. We believe we pay lower than
standard wages. Our retirement system is no longer a
magnet. And we pay more in health insurance than most
of the competition. You know, we've known this for a
long time. And we've ... cut back - ways to save
money for the state - and we've thrown it on the backs
of the employees. And when people are looking at
jobs, they look at those things.
We have a state of the art recruitment system right
now with Workplace Alaska Hiring System. And how that
got in place was through a pilot project negotiated
with our union .... And I .. would suggest here is a
similar pilot project, but do it through collective
bargaining, do it through labor management committees.
If you get the worker bees involved, you're going to
find what works and what doesn't work. ... So, I
would like to recommend that ... you change it to go
through a labor management process. I'd also like to
suggest that you make this bonus compensation for
retirement purposes. ...
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES noted her agreement with Mr. Ludwig's
comments. She inquired as to Mr. Ludwig's opinion with regard
to how much of this opportunity [to make changes in job
positions] comes from the people at the lower level versus those
in management. She related her notion that it seems people
would be reluctant to recommend changes that would eliminate a
fellow employee's job.
MR. LUDWIG informed the committee that although there was once
an incentive program that gave part of the money saved in some
process to the employee involved in creating the savings, it was
never fully implemented. Mr. Ludwig pointed out that none of
the options discussed with regard to recruitment and retention
have involved talking with the workers to determine what would
entice an employee to a job and make that employee want to stay.
The labor management process provides that employee input.
CHAIR COGHILL remarked that although the bill may not demand
[the input from the employee], there is certainly the intention
[for the employees] to be included in the discussion.
MR. LUDWIG specified that his opportunity, as a bargaining
agent, is through his ability to testify on the regulations
before the Personnel Board. Any member of the public has the
right to do so.
CHAIR COGHILL related his understanding that the Personnel Board
will designate these bonuses, which they will discuss with
[people] such as Mr. Ludwig.
MR. LUDWIG said that he didn't see [such language]. There is no
requirement to have any interface with the bargaining units.
"In here, we're giving the administration the right to
unilaterally set wages and do it out of their budget, the way
they want to do it. ... I don't see where this, politically, is
a win-win situation for anybody," he remarked.
Number 2963
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES acknowledged Mr. Ludwig's frustration. She
noted her own frustration with the APEA union because this union
negotiates with an administration that has no ability to pay.
The legislature is involved ...
TAPE 02-31, SIDE B
MR. LUDWIG, in response to Representative James, related his
belief that the more that is taken from bargaining and the less
interaction there is with the employees, the more top down the
management structure.
CHAIR COGHILL characterized that as part of the public policy
call. "If we want the state to do the recruiting, then we need
to give them the authority. If we wanted information as to how
the employees viewed that, I think we would go then to the
collective bargaining," he said. He highlighted that the
legislature is giving the administration not the collective
bargaining unit the responsibility for employment, retention,
and recruitment. Still, he agreed that those most impacted
should be heard.
Number 2883
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES opined the importance of having this
bottom-up suggestion process. "I could probably go where you
want to go today on this issue, except I think I'm probably
willing to go ahead with this if we had that part of the
agreement that there would be this interaction to figure out how
not only to do the job better but to do it for less ..., and the
how the responsibility of that is part of this whole issue of
retention," she said. She pointed out that the issue of
retention can be found everywhere, [especially] with the heavy
reduction in 18-44 year olds [in the state]. This situation
will continue until the state builds some economic activity, she
predicted. She said she didn't think putting "that" in this
bill would be that helpful.
CHAIR COGHILL requested that Mr. Stewart respond to [Mr.
Ludwig's suggestion]. Chair Coghill reiterated his view that
this legislation provides the administration with a
responsibility. However, he related his belief that those in
the collective bargaining units should have an engaged voice as
an interested party. He invited Mr. Stewart to comment.
MR. STEWART agreed to involve the management and the employees
of the collective bargaining unit in regard to the formation of
and consideration of the priority lists presented to the
Personnel Board. In fact, in a meeting with the representatives
of the collective bargaining [unit], [the division] mentioned
[that it would be happy to have them involved] at that point.
"We believe that once the regulatory process takes place and ...
the Personnel Board adopts the program, the narrowest possible
control will provide us with the opportunity to come back and
say whether it's worked or not," he explained.
CHAIR COGHILL expressed agreement in that if the legislature is
going to require the [division] to provide the final answer,
then it should have the final say. However, in the regulation
and board process he expected those in the collective bargaining
management positions to help with the prioritization and the
discussion of the regulatory scheme.
Number 2717
CHAIR COGHILL suggested that there be a report on this in 2004.
Therefore, he offered the following conceptual [Amendment 1] on
[page 5], line 26, that there be a report [on the progress of
this pilot project] to the legislature during the 2004
legislative session.
REPRESENTATIVE HAYES said that it seems like this is a no-win
situation. On the one hand, there is the knowledge that there
is a problem with recruiting and retaining state employees. On
the other hand, legislation freezing the hiring of state
employees is moving through the Senate. He questioned the
message being sent to employers and potential employees.
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES agreed that Representative Hayes' scenario
is concerning. However, she pointed out that the Senate Bill
isn't before the committee.
CHAIR COGHILL asked if there is any objection to conceptual
Amendment 1. There being none, conceptual Amendment 1 was
adopted.
Number 2550
REPRESENTATIVE FATE remarked that he has seen recruitment
bonuses do well. The retention bonuses that he has seen work
are based on efficiency and productivity. He related his
skepticism with regard to giving bonuses merely to retain
people. Although Representative Fate viewed the recruitment
[portion of the bill] as being on the right track, he had
concerns [with regard to the other provisions of the bill].
Number 2495
REPRESENTATIVE CRAWFORD recalled Representative James' comment
regarding the public-private sector in Alaska. He informed the
committee that over the years, the building trade has graduated
a number of apprentices. However, Alaska isn't able to retain
them due to losses to the West Coast states. Moreover, Alaska's
private sector wages haven't kept pace with other states either.
Last year, there was a shortage of ironworkers, pipefitters, and
other trades people in the state. Representative Crawford
related his belief that throughout Alaska there is a systemic
problem because Alaska's wages haven't kept pace over the last
several years. Therefore, he expressed the need to make
stronger structural changes than merely receiving bonuses from
within the department's budget.
CHAIR COGHILL commented that the systemic issue on the societal
level is that Alaska has drifted into a service-based industry
rather than a production-based industry.
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES acknowledged that many people are leaving
the state because there aren't opportunities in the state [for
them]. However, there are many people who would stay regardless
of the wages. Therefore, she felt that there will be a fight
with regard to who gets the employees and thus [this
legislation] might help with retention and [recruitment].
Although the retirement and insurance situations in the state
have changed, it's much better than what's in the private
sector. Therefore, addressing the wages, even at a lower level,
could result in people staying.
Number 2302
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES moved to report CSHB 361, Version 22-
LS1317\F, Cook, 3/20/02, as amended out of committee with
individual recommendations and the accompanying zero fiscal
note. There being no objection, CSHB 361(STA) was reported from
the House State Affairs Standing Committee.
The committee took a brief at-ease.
HB 380-REIMBURSE CERTAIN RETIREE MEDICARE CHARGE
CHAIR COGHILL announced that the next order of business would be
HOUSE BILL NO. 380, "An Act relating to reimbursement for
certain Medicare premium charges for persons receiving benefits
from the teachers' retirement system, the judicial retirement
system, the elected public officers retirement system, and the
public employees' retirement system." He informed members that
only testimony would be taken today.
Number 2199
TOM HARVEY, Executive Director, National Education Association -
Alaska (NEA-AK), related Mr. Jerry Patterson's regret that he
couldn't change his schedule to be present today. Mr. Harvey
recalled that Mr. Patterson, at the prior hearing on HB 380, was
addressing the fiscal note. The $274 million fiscal note over
nine years amounts to approximately $30.4 million a year.
However, NEA-AK believes there are some factors that the
committee should take into consideration. First, the $30.4
million a year means that approximately $23.8 million more is
being collected than necessary to fund the measure. Therefore,
over the nine years, the Division of Retirement & Benefits would
collect about $200 million more than necessary [to fund the
measure]. The compounded interest rate of 8.25 percent on that
[$200 million] would result in $284 million that would be
invested. Only $6.62 [million] of that would be necessary [to
fund the measure]. According to the [$274 million] fiscal note
there would be more than enough money [for this project].
Therefore, NEA-AK believes that the fiscal note could be
reduced. To date, the actual return of 11.48 percent over the
past 20 years sums well over $300 million.
MR. HARVEY turned to the fairness issue for the retirees. The
savings to the division for those younger than 65 is $754 a
month in premium payments. When the individual is over 65 and
accesses Medicare, the state's premium drops to $287 a month and
thus there are over $467 a month in premium savings to the
state. Therefore, [NEA-AK] believes that $57 of that savings
should be spent to pay for the Medicare Part B premium. Another
state agency does so as a cost-savings measure. The
Medicare/Medicaid program in Alaska pays that monthly premium
because of the recognition of the massive savings to the state.
Mr. Harvey said: "We believe it's an equity issue. The ratio
of the savings to premium is 8.5:1. So if you take that
unfunded liability of $274 million, then the savings on that
amount of money is $2.3 billion." Therefore, the savings
experienced by the state should also be experienced by the
retiree covered by the program.
MR. HARVEY moved on to the cost factor. He specified that
passing HB 380 doesn't cost general fund (GF) money.
Furthermore, this legislation wouldn't cost municipalities or
school districts because these are all retirement monies. He
informed the committee that last year when the legislature
passed legislation lowering the age requirement for retiring and
maintaining medical converge, there was a fiscal note with a
cost to employers and a statement of unfunded liability. He
pointed out that the contribution rate fell last year by 1
percent for the employers, which is because of the annual excess
earnings in the retirement system. The fund needs a return of
8.25 percent in order to maintain the earlier mentioned funding
ratio. As mentioned earlier, over the past 20 years the fund's
return has been 11.48 percent. Even with a down market, the
five-year return ending June 30, 2001, averaged 9.37 percent,
which places the fund well over the 8.25 percent necessary. The
excess earnings in the Teachers' Retirement System (TRS) since
1994 has been nearly $900 million and for the Public Employees
Retirement System, the excess earnings has been $1.6 billion.
Those excess earnings have been placed toward improving the
funding ratio of the system. In 1996 the funding ratio was 55
percent and although that is healthy by many standards, it could
be improved upon. On June 30, 2000, the funding ratio was 99.7
percent, which has now declined to 95 percent. Therefore, 1
percent of the $12 billion in excess earnings would [amount to]
$120 million. He reminded everyone that the annual cost is
$30.4 million. "Really it's only $6.6 million. We don't have
to put that other money in the bank," he explained. Therefore,
this is one-fourth of 1 percent of the excess earnings. In
conclusion, Mr. Harvey specified that the fiscal note, although
necessary, wouldn't impact GF money or the viability of the
retirement system. The fiscal note adds to the excess earnings
of the retirement system.
Number 1653
SAM TRIVETTE, President, Retired Public Employees Association of
Alaska (RPEA), turned to the question - asked at the last
hearing - regarding whether the state actually committed in
writing to cover medical expenses for employees. The pending
lawsuit has already moved through the Superior Court. Mr.
Trivette provided the committee with 14 pages of court findings,
which he felt clearly [demonstrates] that the state did make
such a commitment in writing.
MR. TRIVETTE explained that RPEA is comprised of retirees from
all areas of public employment. He pointed out that RPEA has a
medical insurance committee that provides education with regard
to medical issues. Furthermore, RPEA has performed medical
surveys inquiring of the membership what is working and what
isn't. Many of RPEA's members have complained about having to
pay the Medicare premium of $54 a month, which is predicted to
increase in the future. This cost has a significant impact on
the retirees, especially for older retirees and those in the
lower pay ranges. Mr. Trivette echoed earlier testimony that
there will be no cost to the GF for this reimbursement.
Furthermore, the employer contribution has decreased
significantly due to the financial well being of the fund.
Moreover, he related that PERS is funded at 101 percent, which
is superb. Mr. Trivette said, "It's only fair that since the
state pays a much smaller amount of medical expenses for
retirees once the retirees turn 65 that some of the savings
should be shared with the retirees." In closing, Mr. Trivette
encouraged the committee's support of the legislation.
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES reminded the committee that she has a
conflict on this issue because she is 72 years of age, and as
soon as she doesn't work she will fall into this retiree
category.
HB 397 - SNOWMOBILE DRIVERS' LICENSING EXEMPTION
Number 1314
CHAIR COGHILL announced that the next order of business would be
HOUSE BILL NO. 397, "An Act exempting a person driving a
snowmobile from driver licensing requirements."
CHAIR COGHILL asked if there was any objection to the adoption
of CSHB 397, Version 22-LS1448\O, Ford, 3/22/02, as the working
document. There being no objection, Version O was before the
committee.
Number 1286
REPRESENTATIVE VIC KOHRING, Alaska State Legislature, testifying
as the sponsor of HB 397, explained that HB 397 attempts to
eliminate the need for a driver's license for snowmobiles that
aren't operated on the road system in Alaska. He informed the
committee that last year the Department of Transportation &
Public Facilities (DOT&PF) did a study entitled, "Winter
Transportation Study" that revealed those operating off-road
vehicles were doing so illegally because of the requirement of a
driver's license for those vehicles. Therefore, HB 397 was
drafted. Representative Kohring specified that this isn't to
say that individuals shouldn't have a driver's license when
driving on the road. However, he said he believes that it isn't
reasonable for an individual to have to study for a license that
is actually geared toward driving a car on a highway when they
are going to be operating a snowmobile on a trail or a boat on a
lake or river.
MIKE KRIEBER, Staff to Representative Vic Kohring, Alaska State
Legislature, informed the committee that the bill passed out of
the House Transportation Standing Committee accomplished what
Representative Kohring wanted. However, the Division of Motor
Vehicles (DMV) expressed concern that there was a loophole that
would allow a youngster to drive a car down the side of a road.
Therefore, Mr. Krieber said that he worked with the Department
of Law and DMV in order to develop the language included in
[Version O]. [Version O] still accomplishes the exemption of a
driver's license requirement for any vehicle off the road. The
bill would maintain the driver's license requirement for
operation of a vehicle on the road and the vehicle would still
be required to meet any equipment requirements. Therefore, this
bill simply eliminates the driver's license requirement to
operate a motor vehicle off of a road.
Number 1033
REPRESENTATIVE HAYES asked if any consideration has been given
to having drivers' certification for minors. He expressed
concern with not having something in place to address minors
[driving vehicles off the road].
MR. KRIEBER answered that it was discussed in the House
Transportation Standing Committee, which heard testimony from
the director, Division of Parks, Department of Natural Resources
(DNR), and from some board members of SnowTRAC (Snowmobile
Trails Advisory Committee). The SnowTRAC has formed a group to
address safety issues, and they will be presenting a
recommendation addressing rural-urban issues in regard to
whether there should be a [statewide/regional] safety
certification program or training program. Mr. Krieber noted
that there are some training programs in place.
REPRESENTATIVE STEVENS recalled a constituent complaint that a
child in a village was given a ticket for underage driving when
the mother was trying to teach the child how to drive. He
inquired as to how this would impact an underage child living in
a village with no roads.
MR. KRIEBER answered that [HB 397] would exempt such a child
from the driver's license requirement.
Number 0810
CHUCK HOSACK, Deputy Director, Davison of Motor Vehicles,
Department of Administration, testified via teleconference. Mr.
Hosack announced that the [division] supports the bill.
Furthermore, the [division] doesn't believe that it will impact
highway safety. The bill merely addresses a problem in the law
that was never intended to be enforced.
Number 0577
JOHN JOHNSON, President, Fairbanks Snowtravelers, testifying via
teleconference, informed the committee that he is also a member
of the Alaska Snowmobile Association and the past chair of
SnowTRAC. Mr. Johnson announced that the Fairbanks
Snowtravelers are in full support of [HB 397]. If this
regulation isn't passed, a great burden will be placed on law
enforcement within the state. Furthermore, without this bill a
family recreational activity faces the possibility of ruin.
CHAIR COGHILL remarked that [HB 397] seems fairly
straightforward. The discussion of further safety is still open
in regard to off-road use.
MR. JOHNSON informed the committee that he is currently
addressing the issue of developing a statewide snowmobile
safety-training program. Unfortunately, Alaska is well behind
any snow state in the country in regard to safety training
programs for snowmobiles, not to mention a trail system. He
announced the intent to have a training program that would be
acceptable to the state by next year. However, there is no
intent to require this for licensing but rather to merely obtain
a sticker to indicate that the individual has learned how to
utilize a snowmobile safely and thus enjoy the sport of
"snowmobiling."
REPRESENTATIVE FATE asked whether there would be any waivers for
individuals who sign an affidavit attesting to the fact that
they have been operating [snowmobiles] for a number of years.
He said he has known people who have been "racers" and have
never had an accident; he asked whether such people would be
expected to take the orientation course.
MR. JOHNSON said that the initial plan simply focuses on the
design of the program, although there has been some
consideration given to granting "grandfathering rights."
However, [the current thought] is to grandfather in folks who
have already voluntarily taken some sort of training, rather
than to grandfather in folks based on how many years they have
been operating snowmobiles. The number of years someone has
been driving any sort of vehicle is no guarantee that he/she is
a safe driver.
REPRESENTATIVE STEVENS noted that although the testimony is
focusing on snowmobiles, HB 397 pertains to "off-highway"
vehicles, which he assumes means any vehicle that's not on a
highway. If so, does that mean a car or a truck could be
considered an off-highway vehicle, he asked. If the intent is
to speak to just snowmobiles, why not just say so in the
legislation, he also asked.
Number 0342
MR. KRIEBER said: "Actually, with the requirement for
registration of a vehicle ... a car or a truck, that would not
be defined as a off-highway vehicle." The current statute
discusses motor vehicles requiring a driver's license, he
explained, "and what we've done here is we've carved out the
off-highway category, which includes boats, wheelchairs, four-
wheelers, [and] airplanes." With regard to the inclusion of
wheelchairs, he said Mary Mashburn, Director, Division of Motor
Vehicles (DMV), cited a particular case in Anchorage, where
somebody was given a ticket for operating a wheelchair on a road
and the [case] "held up in court."
REPRESENTATIVE FATE referred to aircraft that are registered
under federal law, and whose owners have to, on occasion, make
emergency landings on roadways or highways. Are they subject to
fines under those conditions, he asked.
MR. KRIEBER explained that HB 397 focuses on the requirement, or
lack of requirement, for a driver's license. He said he is
unaware of whether there would be any fines associated with
landing [an airplane] on a road, although under current law, in
order to fly an airplane a person is required to have a driver's
license anyway.
REPRESENTATIVE FATE indicated his belief that an airplane pilot
is not required to have a driver's license, merely a pilot's
certificate.
MR. KRIEBER clarified that according to Ms. Marshburn's
testimony last year on another piece of legislation addressing
airplane safety equipment, in addition to any other requirements
for operating an airplane, a driver's license is also required.
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL, after noting that there were not enough
committee members present to report the bill out of committee,
said he would close the public hearing and hold HB 397.
CHAIR COGHILL called an at-ease from 9:41 a.m. to 9:42 a.m.
HB 315-GROUP HEALTH INSURANCE FOR PRIVATE GROUPS
CHAIR COGHILL announced that the last order of business would be
SPONSOR SUBSTITUTE FOR HOUSE BILL NO. 315, "An Act allowing
employers that are small businesses, small nonprofit
organizations, or small associations for insurance purposes to
join state employee insurance coverage as a group; and providing
for an effective date."
REPRESENTATIVE NORMAN ROKEBERG, Alaska State Legislature,
testified as the sponsor of HB 315.
TAPE 02-32, SIDE A
Number 0001
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG began by pointing that he has spent the
last eight years working on health insurance issues in the
legislature. He related his finding that the inability of the
private sector market to provide affordable cost effective plans
for specific businesses with higher interest rates is pricing
them out of the private market.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG noted his sensitivity to the competition
with the private sector. He explained his goal of establishing
a climate inviting insurance underwriters into the state rather
than forcing them out. "On first blush this legislation may
appear to be that change in philosophy," he remarked.
Representative Rokeberg commented that there's such a problem,
especially knowing that Premera Blue Cross of Washington and
Alaska holds over 50 percent of the entire covered lives under
private health insurance in the State of Alaska. He
characterized Alaska's [health insurance market] as a
contracting market.
Number 0195
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG explained that originally the plan was
to open the state plan such that other small businesses would be
invited in. A few years ago the administration decided to allow
the bargaining units to "step out on their own." He noted that
the legislature was never asked about this, and he has always
opposed it. He acknowledged the notion that the larger the
pool, presumably the lower the rates can be adjusted. Although
he recalled the belief that 300-500 people can be an adequate
size for a pool, one [critical case] can result in a large
annual bill. This original form of the legislation created much
protest, which is the reason for the sponsor substitute that
doesn't include the bargaining units. The sponsor substitute
also raised the number of employees [required to comprise a]
small business from 50 to 300. However, Representative Rokeberg
noted he is having misgivings about that change and thus he
requested that the committee consider lowering that limit back
to 50 employees because that's consistent with the state
definition of a small business and is less competitive with the
private market.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG explained that currently the state
enjoys a government exception under the Employee Retirement and
Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA). Therefore, bringing
private sector people in [under ERISA] would jeopardize that and
thus the bill may need to be modified. With regard to the
effective date, the nonprofits have requested that [be
extended]. Representative Rokeberg concluded by noting the
importance of this legislation.
Number 0820
CHAIR COGHILL announced his intention to bring SSHB 315 before
the committee on Thursday, March 28, 2002. Therefore, SSHB 315
was held over.
ADJOURNMENT
Number 0889
There being no further business before the committee, the House
State Affairs Standing Committee meeting was adjourned at 9:53
a.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|